DECISION NOTICE and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative USDA ,Forest Service Angelina National 'Forest Angelina and Jasper Counties, Texas November 2009 Decision and Reasons for Decision Based upon my review of the proposal, the analysis deseribed in the environmental assessment (EA), public comments, and the project record, I have decided to select Alternative 2, the proposed action, and its associated design criteria for the Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative. Alternative 2 proposes the least amount of impact to Wilderness Character while still meeting the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Aetion. Alternative 2 provides for the following acti vities: 1. Conduct prescribed burns on approximately 11,990 acres in LJpland Island Wilderness to reduce hazardous fuels. Conduct prescribed burns on approximately 990 of adjacent private property, state lands, and national forest lands for an approximate total of 12,980 acres. The proposed action includes approximately 1,260 acres in a No Burn Area in the vicinity of Graham and Cypress Creeks inside UIW (see Appendix AA.l, Alternative 2). 3. Construct approximately 16.4 miles of fire control lines on the exterior of UIW. These lines will be located on private lands adjacent to UIW. These lines will use existing control lines where they exist on adjacent private property, and be established with mechanical tools (e.g., bulldozer) or hand tools on private property with permission from the land owners. 4. In addition, this proposal includes 14.4 miles of interior control lines within UIW. Approximately 6.3 miles of interior control lines would be established using hand tools on abandoned roads that accessed the area prior to the establishment of the wilderness in 1984. No hand line would be constructed on previously undisturbed surfaces inside UIW. However, there are approximately 4.7 miles of creeks or naturally wet fuel breaks that would be used as control lines where the minimum required hand clearing may be necessary to eliminate fuel bridges. In addition, approximately miles of existing roads on non-wilderness lands would be used as fire breaks to separate burn units or burn blocks. Design Criteria Associated with Alternative 2 In addition to the applicable standards from the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (the Plan), the design criteria described below, as well as monitoring detailed on 21-22 of the EA, are part of my decision. 1. Wet sites, such as bogs and seepage zones would be identified and protected (the Plan p. 83 and 152). No equipment would be allowed in these areas and no stream crossings will be designated in these areas. Measures to prevent or reduce siltation problems at stream crossings to protect aquatic habitat for the aquatic species will be used. Stream crossings would be kept to a minimum to prevent disturbances within mesic habitats to sensitive flora and fauna. 3. If previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources are encountered during the implementation of this project, work in that area would cease immediately until the resources can be assessed and evaluated by a member of the Heritage Management Team, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been afforded the opportunity to review the findings. The site area would be excluded from all treatments until this review can be completed. Known archaeological and historical sites which are considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and those which have not been fully evaluated in order to determine their eligibility for the NRHP, would be removed from the area of potential effect by adjusting the appropriate boundaries of the proposed actions. 4. If previously undocumented RCW activity is discovered during implementation of this project, the project would be stopped. The district wildlife biologist would evaluate the situation and determine appropriate management actions to take that would be consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines. 5. Prescribed fire would only be applied under an approved burning plan to meet specific resource objectives, and under the supervision of a qualified burning boss. The burning plan would plot the trajectory of the smoke plume, identify smoke-sensitive areas, predict fire behavior, and set parameters for burning conditions to minimize risk of resource damage or fire escape. Burns would be conducted within weather and fucl moisture parameters established for the NFGT. 6. Notify the Forest Supervisor's Office, Texas Forest Service, County Sheriff's Office, Volunteer Fire Departments, and adjacent landowners prior to ignition of any prescribed burn. 7. A void placement of hand-lines on soils occurring on slopes greater than 15% to decrease long-term soil loss. Reasons for the Decision DNIFONSI 2 Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative- November 2009 My decision to implement Alternative 2 is based on its effectiveness to reduce hazardous fuels in UIW, to protect human life and adjacent private property, to increase the safety of wildland firefighters who would have to respond to wildfires within UIW, and to protect the ecosystems in UIW from possible wildfire conflagrations or high severity fires. This project will reduce the hazardous fuels that have developed in UIW as a result of fire suppression during the last 25 years since it was designated as wilderness. It will also result in a wider range of options for responding to unplanned ignitions in the wilderness. I considered the need to take action and the issues identified during scoping in making my decision. I weighed the effects of prescribed burning, constructing firelines, and protecting human life and private property, and the key issues associated with the project, against taking no action. I am not willing to accept the potential effects on human life and private property associated with Alternative 1 - No action or Alternatives 3 and 5 which do not propose the use of a helicopter for lighting interior fire lines. The Proposed Action would have acceptable effects on the environmental components and provide the benefits of reducing hazardous fuels and increasing the safety of wildland firefighters. I have considered the best available science in making this decision. The project record demonstrates a thorough review of relevant scientific information, consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. I considered the need to take action and the issues identified during scoping in making my decision. I weighed the effects of thinning, road improvements, prescribed burning, NNIPS control, and erosion control work on the vegetation, soil and water, air, wildlife, and recreational use of the area, and the key issues associated with the project, against taking no action. I am not willing to accept the potential effects associated with the no action alternative. The Selected Alternative will have acceptable effects on the environmental components and provide the benefits of reducing fuel loadings and SPB hazard. I have considered the effect of this project on climate change, as well as the effect of climate change on this project. Any resulting greenhouse gas emission would not be measurable on a global scale. Other Alternatives Considered The following alternatives were considered in detail. They are fully described on pages 14-19 of the EA and a description summary in table form is also given on pages 19-20 in the EA. Alternative 1- No Action. This alternative was not selected because: 1. It does not meet the purpose and need and is not supported by the analysis contained within the EA. Alternative 2 - Proposed Alternative This alternative will be implemented. See above discussion regarding my decision to implement Alternative 2. DN/FONSI - 3 Upland Island Wilderness Fire Management Initiative- November 2009 Alternative 3 This alternative was not selected because: 1. It would construct over 44 miles of interior firelines. 2. It would not provide the safety of firefighters since it excludes using the helicopter to light interior fire lines. 3. The magnitude and duration of the proposed activities would adversely affect Wilderness Character. Alternative 4 This alternative was not selected because: 1. It does not meet the purpose and need. Hazardous fuel reduction would only occur on 6,610 acres within Cpland Island Wilderness. Alternative 5 This alternative was not selected because: 1. It does not meet the purpose and need. Hazardous fuel reduction would only occur on 6,610 acres within C pI and Island Wilderness. 2. It would construct over 30 miles of interior fireline. 3. It would not provide for the safety of firefighters since it excludes using the helicopter to light interior fire lines. 4. The magnitude and duration of the proposed activities would adversely affect Wilderness Character. Public Involvement This project was developed with input received through several public collaboration efforts including a Limits of Acceptable Change analysis for Cpland Island Wilderness that was completed in 1994, the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (1996), and a collaborative meeting concerning this proposal held on March 7,2007 at Zavalla City Hall that included a field trip to UIW. Presentations were made to Sierra Club chapters on May 1, 2007 in Beaumont and on August 8, 2007 in Houston. A Minimum Requirements